The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-21 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, My O. ROYAL ASSENT. The LORD CHANCELLOR, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and Lord GLaNELG, took their seats on the Woolsack this day at four o'clock, for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent by Com Mission to several Bills. The SPEAKER of the House of Commons, accompanied by several Members, having appeared at the Bar, the Royal As sent was given in the usual manner to the Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, the Bankrupts (Ireland) Bill, the Division of Counties (England and Wales) Bill, the Forth and Cart Canal Bill, the Bolton and Leigh Railway Bill, the Wakefield and Sheffield Road Bill, and the Steppingley Inclosure Bill. On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Manches ter and Leeds Railway Bill, the Teigumouth Improvement Bill, and the Leeds and Derby Railway Bill, were severally read a second time. The House then adjourned during pleasure. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY resumed his seat on the Wool sack at five o'clock. Mr. E. DENISON and others brought up from the Com mons the Perlethorpe Chapelry Bill, which was read a first time. Lord DACRE presented petitions from Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire praying that in any revision of the Criminal Law the punishment of death might not be retained for any crime than that of wilful murder. Earl SHAFTESBURY laid on the table, on behalf of the Bishop of Winchester, a Bill to render valid all , marriages celebrated in a Chapel of Ease, called Thames Chapel, Sur rey, which had not been licensed. The parties who had been married there were very anxious on the subject. The Bishop of WIN CHESTER presented a petition from Peckham, in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. PEASE and others brought up the Great North of Eng land Railway Bill.—Read a fiat time. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table the third Report of the Church Commissioners—Ordered to be printed. The Earl of HARROWBY presented several petitions praying for the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. E. TENNENT and Others brought up the Hungerford Market Company Incorporation Bill.—Read a first time. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would now only move that the House adjourn till to-morrow, with the understanding that to-morrow, after the judicial business was over, the House would adjourn till the 30th inst. Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 20. . ` o \ c•-• The SPEAKER took the Chair at a Quarter before Four o'Clock, when Daniel O'Connell, Esq., took the oaths and his scat for Kilkenny. He was introduced amidst loud cheers by Messrs. Gillon, D. Roche. and Power. The Usher of the Black Rod (Sir Augustus Clifford) ap peared, and summoned the House to the House of Peers, to hear the Royal Assent given to certain Bills, for which see Lords' report. PERLETHORPE CHAPEL BILL. Mr. E. DENISON moved the third reading of the Perlethorpe Chapel Bill. Mr. A. TREVOR could not allow the Ball to pass without taking the sense of the House upon it, as ha believed it was against all principle. Mr. DENISON defended the Bill. Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN hoped that the House would not pass this Bill, as it went to establish a very bad precedent, as every one who had a similar case would ask for the same privilege. He hoped the Hon. Member would net trouble the House to divide.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUGHES HUGHES hoped that the sense cf the House would favour the Bill, and ho trusted that greater faci lities would be afforded generaily for increased Church ac commodation, such as this Bill would afford. lie hoped that the House would not only pass this Bill, but that it would form a precedent that would be frequently foilotved. Mr. JERVIS hvislh d to know if provision were made by thi3 Bill for the repairs of the chapel ? Mr. E. DENISON said that the church ha I been built by Burl Manvers—it bad heen always maintained by him, and lee would continue to rednir arol ui;hold it. The Bill was the re.ei a thlrd time aed passed. MIDLAND COUNTIES RAILWAY. Mr. DE N 0 N br,:eght uo the ?..p o rt on this Bill. BLACiiWALL CO`dMERCIAL AND NORTHERN RAILWAY. Mr. J. ALSTON brought u? the Report on this Bill. 111%M.,1 th::n moved that the Coninii!tee on the )znay...reial Not hero Railway Bill be allowed ate to make their Report. l ilr' iI 7D BLIc fall! ,vail uwil thu o f.' -Vier srinic was carried on in a con4er3,l t,me, Mr. P. THOMPSON su.2-gosted that the time should be to the 6:h of jam!, in v.h.c!l case he weed ui:k no uhji.etion to tile r.t: extendeti. t lhe motion was the . i , reed to. MIDLAN!) RAILWAY BILL. Si; R. FE RC; U S SON presented a petition from the coal owners of Nottingham and Derby, agaLst the Midland Coun ties' Railway Bill. TRINITY HARBOUR BILL. On the motion of Sir A. LEITH HAY, the Trinity Har bour 8.1 l was read a thirst time and passed. GRAVESEND PIER BILL. Mr. TOOKE presented apetition from Gravesend - in favour of this Bill. The lion. Member said that in the absence of his Hon. Friend, the Member for West Kent. he bad been requested to move the second reading of this Bill. Sir E. CODRINGTON had a petition to present against the Bill, and would oppose it, on the ground that it created an 'undue monooly. Mr. H. HUG HES moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six. months. la doing this lie would sim ply advert to two considerations, the Report of the Steam Navigation Committee in the year 1831, which stated that " considerable inconvenience would arise from the prac tice of many steam-vessels starting from one point at the same time, and keeping together." And the other con sideration was the resolution of the Steam NavigatiOn and Port of Loudon Committee, of the 17th of March, 1836, in these words, " That it was the opinion of the Committee that the clause of the present Gravesend Pier Act, which prevented more than one vessel from disembarking passengers at the same time was a considerable protection to the public and to the in terests of navigation, and that any alteration in the clause would be injurious." Now this Bill was for the express pur pose of altering that clause, and inflicting the very injuries which the Resolution of the Committee sought to prevent. The Bill would allow two steam-boats to lie -along-side of the wharf, and run against each other in the river, and thus increase the evils mentioned in the report to which he referred. Sir E. CODRINGTON opposed the motion for more reasons than were put forward by the Hon. Member for Oxford.—(Hear.) The projection of the pier would he a serious injury to the navigation of the river ; and if it passed, the interests of the watermen along the river would be altogether destroyed. Those persons had subscribed 1,000/. for the protection. cf their interests at the Admiralty, and the measure before the House would shut them out from all the advantages which they before gained. Those who called themselves the conservators of the river really were the cause of all the mischief done to it. The measure before the House would be an act of gross injustice, and he hoped, therefore, it would not be allowed to pass into a law. Dr. I3OWRING concurred with the Hon. and Gallant Member, that it would be a gross injustice to pass this Bill. Captain PECHELL was requested by the watermen of the river Thames to oppose this Bill, and he never opposed any Bill with greater pleasure. This was the third County of Kent Bill he had felt it his duty to oppose; and, in his opinion, the present Bill, if passed, would be an act of downright robbery. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to go into Com mittee as the only means of enabling the party to pay the debts they had incurred. After a few words from Mr. BERNARD, Mr. 0. F. YOUNG wished to state that a petition had been forwarded to the House that very evening, signed by three-fourths of the bondholders of the debt, declaring them selves perfectly satisfied with the present security. Mr. TOOKE explained—The debt was 30,0001., and the amount due to bondholders was only 19,0001. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when the numbers were For the Bill l4 Against it Majority against the Bill Captain ALSAGER brought up the report of the Com mittee on the London and Croydon Railway. Mr. E WART presented a petition from Liverpool against certain parts of the Liverpool Dock Bill. DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the Committee on this Railway obtained a further extension of time to make their report, viz. till July 6. Some mistake had occurcd, and time was requisite to correct it HUNGERFORD MARKET BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAILWAY. Mr. A. TREVOR moved the third reading of this Bill. _Mr. G. F. YOUNG would not suffer this Bill to be read a third time without expressing the strong o bj ec ti ons he and his constituents had to it, if he could h ope t h at hi s opposition would be attended with any go o d e ff ects . As, however, his opposition to this Bill i n a f ormer stage had been attended with a different result, he thought it useless to trouble the House further on the present occasion. The Bill was read a third time, and passed. DURHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. A. 'RE VOR brought up the report of the Committee on this Bill, stating that the Standing Orders had been com plied with, Iltit (as we understood) that the preamble of the Bill had not been proved. Mr. HUME, as the report did not state the reasons of the Committ ee , i n c ompli an ce with the relrulations laid down by the Horse, moved that the Bill be re-tort.mittecl, in order that the Co mm i t t ee m i g ht ma k e a s p ec ial report, according to the rules of the House. Mr. A. TREVOR thought the course pursued by the Hon. Member for Middlesex rather unusual, and in support of which no ground had been stated. He was sorry the Chairman of the Committee was not in his place, that he might explain what had occurred ; but be thought the House ought to be cautious before they acceded to th e proposition made by the Member )'or Middlesex, who it seenis had taken the whole county of Durham under his especial protection, as if the Members from tirot county were incap a bl e o f attending to the interests of their ionstauent i . s. He supposed th at H on. Gentleman had enough nn his hands the county with which he was more c. annected, and that he had no occ as i on to travel so far as Durham, in search of subjects on which to expend hi s care . It appear( al the interests of the people in that county were of poscd hy a cabal, at the head of which, at least as forming a principal part, was the lion. Alemb e ,- o pp os i te . In the Committee every attention was paid to the i aterests of ~~ the parties, every subject connected with it minutely investi gated ; and if the House sanctioned the motion at the other side it would be establishing a dangerous precedent, of which every disappointed speculator would hereafter take advantage in impugning the decision of Committees. Mr. HUME believed there was no other Member in the House but the Gentleman who had just sat down ignorant of the motion made by him (Mr. Hume.) It was one simply to ascertain if the Standing Orders were complied with, and therefore the Hon. Gentleman's indignation was altogether thrown away. Mr. POULETT THOMSON entirely concurred with his Honourable Friend, the Member for Middlesex, that this Bill ought to be recommitted. The Railway Committee had been appointed for the purpose of procuring and communicating to the House information on the subject of railways. In this instance the Committee had not stated in their report the reasons which induced them to throw out this Bill. By the regulations of the House they were cer tainly bound to do so, and he therefore thought the Bill ought to be recommitted for the purpose of procuring the necessary information. Sir J. GRAHAM contended, that under the circumstances stated by the Committee, they did not feel bound to make any special report to the House; and, in adopting that course, they had acted upon the advice f the officers of the House. Mr. LAMBTON, as a Member of the Committee, de fended the course pursued by them. Mr. WA S 0 N was sure that it was the wish of every one of the Members of the Committee to do justice to all parties. Mr. H. HUGHES hoped the House would not be satisfied without seeing the reasons why the Bill was rejected in Com mittee, in order that the House might see whether they had exercised a sound discretion or not. He believed that on those reasons being seen there would be ample cause for the rec ommittal of the Bill. Mr. PRAED thought if the Bill was to be re-committed it should be done upon some special resolution of the House. Mr. E. DENISON said that the resolutions of the House were intended to controul the proceedings of Commit ters, and therefore the House required to know as well why a Bill was rejected al why it was alopted. Mr. ROBINSON would vote for the re-commitment of the Bill. Mr. PEASE said that the Committee had not adjourned. They were, in point of fact, still sitting, as the motion of ad journment was put and negatived. If the House, therefore, wished them to state their reasons for making this report, they were ready to do so. All they wished to know was, whether the House would require them to make such a report. Mr. WA RB URT 0 N supported the motion. Sir T. FREMANTLE thought the precedent esta blished by acceding to the resolution a very inconvenient one. If a motion were made for reviving the Committee with instructions to report, it should meet with his concurrence. Mr. HUME said that was his object, and he would consent to shape'the terms of his motion so as to meet the views of the Hon. Baronet. Mr. LA MBTON wished to know if the House would sanc tion the principle of allowing members to vote in Committees who bad not heard a word of the evidence ? The SPEAKER said that it was of the utmost impor tance. that the rules of the House should be strictly ad hered to, arid that the House should be in possession of the grounds upon which a Bill was rejected. In his opinion the orders of the I-louse had not, in the present in stance, been complied with, inasmuch as the rules required that Committees should state the grounds upon which Bills were rejected. Mr. PR AED contended that when the preamble of the Bill was not proved, ;he Coinmittee had no right to report ' specially. After a few words from Mr. PHILLIP HOWARD, Sir G. CLERK said the question for the House was whether when the preamble was not proved the Committee were bound to turd; e a special report, stating their reasons for the decision they had cone to. He thought the Bills should be re-com mitted, for the purpose of enabling the Committee to make their report of the minutes of the proceedings to the House. He thought the resolution could not be looked upon by the House as any thing else than the Report of the Committee. The Bill was re-committed. SMALL DEBT COURTS. Mr. T. DUN COM 13E moved the second reading of the Westuzii:ster D:bt Court 3' Bill. Mr. C. B I, LE It opposed the Bill. In these Courts there was no one the authority of a Judge, nor was there any one capable of being so by their education. These Courts were in bad odour throughout the country. The Bill had not been put into the hands of Members, and they could not yet judge of its provi,ions. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day sin months. Mr. HA WES hoped his Hon. Friend would not press hi s motion. The parties had now agreed that in Committee the Bill should be made analogous to those which had lately passed for the regulation of similar courts'in Macclesfield and Leicester. The lidl ought to he allowed to go into Committee where these amendments might ho introduced, and then it might be opposed upon principle. Mr. H. HUGHES thought if the Hon. Member (Mr. Buller we believe) understood this Bill rightly, he would give it his most ardent support. Mr. HUME begged .to remind the House that this was not a new Bill ; it seas a Bill to amend the 23d and 24th of George 11., and to reduce the expenses attic present system. When the Bill was in Committee, he would be happy to have the attention of hi.?. Hon. Fa lend, or any other Member who could propose any amelioration, and to remove imprisonment for debt. It was very desirable to get rid of imprisonment for debt as early as possible. Sir E. CODRINGTON thought that the present System was very severe, and would therefore support the Bill. Mr. BULLER would not withdraw his amendment, and he must protest against the manner in which the Bill had been .smuggled into the House.— ( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL thought it would be better if there was a general Bill upon the subject, as Leicester, Macclesfield, and several other towns html obtained similar measures. Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE denied that the Bill had been smuggled into the House. It had been printed, and in the hands of Hon. Members for some time. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, and the Bill was read a second time. DUBLIN'STEAM PACKET COMPANY. On the motion of Lord SANDON, this Bill was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee. Mr. O'CONNELL, on being nominated as one of the Committee declined to act. After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. P. THOM SON, who both agreed in the necessity of framing some com prehensive measure on the subject of liability in partnership that would apply to the entire kingdom, DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from certain eke tors of the city of Dublin, against the sitting Members of that city. The Hon. and Learned Member conceived the peti tion to come within the Statute ; but if any doubt arose upon the subject, he should be content that it should be printed, and that the opinion of the House should be taken upon it on the first day of sitting after the recess. Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought that the House ought not to be called upon to discuss a question of so much impor tance without previous notice. The case, however, arising out of the present petition did not appear to him to be a new one. . In 1834,. the House determined upon a case in every respect strictly analogous with the present. In that case, on the very day on which the petition was presented, the House came to the decision that it could not be received—he alluded to the Monaghan case. In that case the original election pe tition was presented on the sth of June. On the 2d of July, the Committee was struck, and on the 30th of July, the Com mittee reported that Colonel Westenra was not duly elected, and that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. This was strictly analogous with the report of the Dublin Election Committee. Under the Gren ville Act there had been five or six cases in which time had been asked consequent upon the Report of the Committee ; but in all those cases, without any exception, the Report of the Committee bad simply been that the return was undue. The only case which he found upon the Journals of the House of a petition ever being presented after the Report of an Election Committee constituted under the Grenville Act, in which it was declared not only that the one party was not duly elected, but that the other party was duly elected, and ought to have been returned, was the case of Mcnoghan, to which he had already referred. Mr. O'CONNELL—WiII the Right Honourable Baronet allow me to interrupt him for one moment ? A little explana tion may, perhaps, prevent further discussion at this time. I could not present this petition sooner than to-day. It was not prepared till within the last few days, and till to-day I have not been competent to present it. It was only on Monday last that the Report of the Committee was made. I do not apply for time ; Ido not want it. I would have given notice of my intention to present the petition if the House had sat to-morrow, or even on Monday. But as this is the last day on which the House sits for nearly a fortnight, and as the day on which it next sits will be the last on which such a peti tion as the present could be received, I thought it better to lay it upon the table this evening, in order that it might be printed prior to its being discussed when we re-assemble after the recess. Ido not wish it to be prematurely discussed now. i Having intimated to the House that such a petition is n existence, I should even be content to withdraw it for the pre sent.--( Hear.) But whenever it is discussed, I shall be per fectly prepared to show that it comes within the statute, that none of the cases alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir J. Graham) apply to it, and that gross injustice will be done if it be not received and its prayer attended to.—( Hear.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when the Hon. and Learned Member interrupted him, he was endeavouring to state to the House the grounds of th e de c i s i on which was made in the case of the Monaghan petition. The present petition could be regarded in no other light than as virtually asking for the appointment of another Committee under the Grenville Act, to re-try the merits of the last Dublin election.—( Hear. ) But under th e G renv ill e A ct , w h en an e l ect i on C omm i ttee d u l y appointed had come to a decision as to the return of the Member, no peovision whatever was made for any appeal. He had stated that since the passing of that Act, five or six instances had occurred of petitions being presented, after the reports of election Committees had been made, as ki n g for the fourteen days within which, by the rule of the House, petitions complaining of the return of any sit ting Member must be laid up on t h e ta b le. But in each of those five or six cases, the repo r t o f t h e Committee had not affirmed the right of the party petiti on i ng to b e returned, but had only adjudicated upon the simpl e po i nt of the pro priety or impropriety of the return. Th e case o f M onaghan anw ioasEtiheectonnly o ne in which a petition had bee n p resented after Committee had declared that on e M em b er was not duly elected, and that another was duly elected, and ought to have been returned. And how was that petition received ? On referring to the Journals of the House, he found or, the 13th of August, 1834, an entry to this effect ;—" The peti- TAR SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 21, 1836. tion of certain electors of the county of Monaghan, complain ing of the election and return of Edward Lucas, Esq., being presented, the entry on the Journals of the 30th of July last of the Report of the Monaghan Election Committee was read, to this effect :—That the Hon. Henry R. Westenra was not duly elected a Knight to serve in Parliament for the county of Monaghan ; that Edward Lucas, Esq., was duly elected a knight, and ought to have been returned for the said county." A debate ensued, which ended by the House directing the pe tition to be withdrawn. This was the last decision which the House had come to upon a matter of this kind, and, believing the decision to be most correct, he thought that a similar course ought to be adopted on the present occasion. With that view he should now move that the Report of the Dublin Election Committee entered upon the Journals of the House on Monday last, be now read. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if there were any difficulty upon the subject, he thought it arose out of the circumstance of the petition being pre sented on the last day of the House sitting prior to the recess.—( Hear, hear.) If, instead of adjourning for ten days, the House were only about to adjourn till Mon day next, there would, he apprehended, be no doubt as to the course that ought to be pursued, namely, to print the petition and take the discussion upon it on Monday. He agreed with his Right Hon. Friend ( Sir James Graham) that there was no subject on which it behoved the House to act with more jea lous caution than on questions of this description. As some difficulty seem to have arisen on the present occasion, what lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished to do was to suggest that which appeared to him to be the fair and just mode of dealing with the subject, namely, to allow the petition to lie upon the table, and to adjourn the discussion upon it until the first day of the House sitting after the recess. Mean while Hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of consult ing all the precedents upon the subject. He should move as an amendment that the debate be adjourned till the first day •after the recess.—( Hear.) Sir GEORGE CLERK did not know what they could gain by postponing the discussion. They could not be called upon to judge from the allegations of the petition, whether it were deserving of attention or not, because the question had already been tried before a competent tribunal, by which a de cision that ought to be final had been pronounced. There was no difference between the present case and that of the case of Monaghan. It was proper, therefore, that the same course should be pursued. Mr. O'CONNELL said his object in rising was to reply to some of the observations that had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir James Graham) opposite. He was prepared to meet the Right Hon. Baronet foot to foot. Here was a case where it was impossible to present a petition sooner. Here, too, was a case which, in other respects, differed essentially fi'3lll those to which the Right Hon. Baronet had referred. In this instance the candidates—the Gentlemen who now sat for the city of Dublin—were not parties to the original elec tion petition ; and the words of the statute were special, that the decision of a Committee appointed under the Grenville Act should not be thud unless it were a decision between the parties. He prayed the House to see what a mon strous thing it was to resist • the course he proposed to take. The report of the Dublin Election . Committee, pre sented on Monday last, contained the following resolution : " The Committee feel it to be their duty especially to report to the House that eight persons, viz-, Matthew Nadden, George Osborn, Patrick Finucane, Oliver Richards, John Forsyth, CharlN Dempsey, James Baldwin, and Andrew Hutchinson, were struck off the poll as having voted under a corrupt expectation, and having subsequently received money ; but the Committee are unanimously of opinion that there is no evidence that Messrs. West and Hamilton, for whom they voted, were either directly or indirectly implicated in such corrupt practices."—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He e admired that cheer; but would the Hon. Gentlemen who were so vociferous; listen to the reason why there was no evidence to implicate Messrs. West and Hamilton? Because the Com mittee, when it opened a Commission to go to Dublin for the purpose of taking evidence, gave directions to that Commis sion, limiting them to particular points on which only they were to take evidence. He held in his hand a cony of the limitations imposed upon the Commission. It was a question whether any recriminatory evidence was to be admitted against the unsuccessful candidates. Upon that point the direction given to the Commission was that no recriminatory evi dence should be admitted against the unsuccessful candi d ites, except so fir as regarded the dispalification of votes, th e unsuccessful candidates not being parties before the Cumraittee. That being the ease, the unsuccessful candi dates not being parties, not being before the Committee at all, the Committee might well say that there was no evidolice against them.—( Hear, hear.) The question, then, was, whether under such circumstances—whether, ac cording to a correct construction of the Grenville Act, the decision of the Election Committee was one that ought to be held as positively final. The words of the statute were that the decision cf the Committee should be " final between the parties to all intents and purposes." Now lie assured the House that in this instance the parties seated by the decision of the Committee were not parties to the petition, that they were so far from being parties that the Committee expressly excluded any evidence of a recriminatory character against them.---( Hear, hear.) What did he claim for the present petitioners? Nothing more than that their petition should be printed, and that the contents of it should be deliberately con sidered on the first day of the re-assembling of the House after the recess.—( Hear.) The question that arose out of the present case was one that had never been determined. It was out of the statute.—(Hear, hear.) The words of the statute were precise. They stated distinctly and precisely that the Report of the Committee should be final and conclu sive " between the parties." Messrs. West and Hamilton were not parties—nothing was heard against them—yet the Committee did not pronounce them guiltless, but returned only the Scotch verdict of " non proven." He was prepared to adopt the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exche quer if the House thought fit to adopt it. All that he - required was, that in this case, where it was demonstrated that bribery existed—bribery which the former Committee did not try, be cause those on whose side it was committed were not parties to the petition—there should be allowed an opportunity of trying it now.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. G. F. YOUNG felt bound in candour to say that the Committee, having precluded the Commissioners from taking evidence upon a point upon which they conceived it was not competent to themselves to enter, came to their conclusion under the fullest impression that if there were any ground for the allegation of bribery against the Members who were seated in consequence of their report, it would be open to the opposite party to try that question by presenting a peti tion to the House.—( Hear, hear.) He knew not whether he had acted properly or not in making that declaration. He had not had the opportunity of consulting more than one of his colleagues upon the subject, but lie believed that what lie had stated was in strict accordance with the feel ings and impressions of all /the members of the Committee. --(Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he (Mr. G. F. Young) would not be a party to any attempt to exclude any parties who came before ,the House with an allegation of bribery against the candidates from giving such proof as it was in their power to offer. —( Hear, hear.) Mr. C. W. WYNN said that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Kilkenny (Mr. O'Connell) had referred to the course taken in the case of the Canterbury election petition as if it afforded a precedent for that which he now proposed. But if the Hon. and Learned Member had taken the trouble to look into that case he would see that it had no analogy whatever to the present. The report of the Canterbury election commit tee was that the sitting Members were not duly returned, and that the petitioner was duly returned ; and that was followed by a motion on the opposite side, to be at liberty to question, not the return, but the election, upon which the committee had not reported. In so doing the committee had acted in accordance with repeated precedents, in which, when it ap peared that clearly on the face of the poll the petitioner was entitled to be returned, they reported that fact without going into the merits of the election, leaving it open to the electors to petition, if they thought fit, within fourteen days, on the merit of the election. He (Mr. Wynn) happened perhaps to be more sensible of the full weight of the precedent upon this point, because it was connected with his own family. It was to be found in the case of the Denbigh election in 1742. The case was this : there appeared on the face of the poll to be 1,370 votes in favour of an ancestor of his (Mr. Wynn's), and between 800 and 900 in favour of Mr. Myddleton. Mr. Myddleton's brother was sheriff, and returned him in the face of the large majority on the poll. The House determined to set this right, and after going into an inquiry upon the point, it declared that the petitioner (his ancestor) ought to be re. turned, but at the same time, gave fourteen days to the elec tors, of any other person, to question the merits of the elec tion. A similar case occurred in the election for the county of Bedford in 1784, when a contest took place between Mr. St. John and Lord Onslow. In that case the Committee de termined that the petitioner had a right to be returned, but al lowed the additional time to question the merits of the elec tion. But in the presentlinstance the report of the Commit tee was that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought to have been returned. No petition, therefore, could be pre sented, or be taken into consideration but for the purpose of reversing that decision. But, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " these are not parties before the Committee ; the electors had not the power of questioning the election of Messrs. West and Hamilton ; the sitting Members had that power, but the electors had not, because Messrs. West and Hamilton were not parties." Till about.seven years ago, it was perfectly true that this apparent hardship was one to which the electors might be subject. Up to 1828, those who had voted for the sitting Member might, either in conse quence of his death, or supposing him to act in collusion with the petitioner, and not bona fide to defend i his seat—in either of these cases the electors were precluded, and might, without any fault or negligence of their own, be prevented from being represented by the persons whom they had chosen. But in 1828 he (Mr. Wynn) had himself the honour of intro ducing an Act upon this subject, with the view of remedying that defect ; and to enable the electors, in the case of any disputed return, to prevent the poss i b ilit y of such a contin gency as that which he had pointed out. During a period of sixty-six years since the Grenville A ct was p asse d ,° that House had never, for one moment, given countenance to the oppor tunity of questioning the decision of a Select Committee. It had held that it should be, as it was provided by the statute, absolutely final. If it were not, they would be re-opening the decision of every election case that might come before the House.—( Hear.) They would have parties coming forward and retrying every case which had been already determined upon, in the direct face of the words of an Act of Parliament, and in the direct face of sixty-six years practice. Therefore he would conclude by saying that if he stood alone he would divide the House against the petition being allowed to be upon the table, or of being received by the House. Dr. LUSHINGTON had heard quite enough to satisfy his mind that it was a question of great importance, and ought net to be disposed of by the house without mature consideration. Whether this petition ought to be received or not, depended upon the true 'construction of the Greville Act, as stated by his Right Hon. Friend, upon reference also to that Act of Parliament which he himself introduced, and upon reference to the whole train of decided cases during the last 66 years. Now, he must be a very bold Member of Parliament, and very regardless of the importance of this decision, who would rashly pronounce an opinion, either one way or the other, without ,an opportunity of considering what was the force of those enact ments, and what the applicability of those decisions which were said to be applicable to this case. He must be prepared to bear in mind not merely the whole of the Grenville Act, and the whole of the particulars of that important statute to which the Right Hon. Gentleman had referred, but he must be prepaied also, without any notice of this petition, without any previous opportunity of informing his mind upon the subject, or of comparing this case with the Monaghan or any other case, to come to a conclusion upon a most important question in volving the validity of the seats of two Members of that House. In Ms judgment, he who pronounced an opinion in any way upon this case, without applying himself to the points he had mentioned, and without any consideration what ever, beyond what the present debate afforded him to give to the question, did injustice to the parties..—(Hear.) He (Dr. Lushington) was decidedly of that opinion, because he would venture to say—perhaps he might make an exception in favour of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for the the county of Montgomery—that the great majority of the Members of that House were not acquainted with the purport of those statutes, nor of the decisions which bore upon the question. He agreed that in strictness the proper motion would be, not that the petition should lie on the table and be printed (although that might be the more convenient mode), but that this debate should be adjourned.—(llear, hear.) By adopting that course they would violate no law of Parliament, and would give an opportunity for due consideration, which would enable the House to do justice to the parties. He agreed further with his Right Hon. Friend, that if this was one of those cases in which the decision of the Committee ought to be final and decisive, not merely as between the parties who attended upon the heating of the petition, but as against the whole world, he himself would be one of the first, whatever injustice might have been accidentally done by the Committee to oppose the establishing a precedent that would lead to mis chief. But he could not shut his eyes, in the consideration of this question, to the declaration made by, the Hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr: Young), who was a Member of the Com mittee. He could not forget that that Hon. Member had told the House that the Committee, right or wrong, had excluded from their conslideration one of the most important topics that could enable them to pronounce the very decision to which they h..d come ; that was, whether the now sitting Members had themselves been guilty of bribery or not ?—( Hear, hear.) It might turn out that the Committee lost their way and were in error. Why not give lion. Members time for considera tion ? The greater the importance of the question the greater the reason for delay.—( Hear, from Mr. Wynn.) Very well. If you agree, I have done. Mr. C. W. WYNN wished to explain. All that he ob jected to was that the House should take the slightest step which might appear as if it admitted such a petition.—( Hear. ) Either it was an election petition, or it was not. If it were an election petition it ought to be received without any ques tion, and as a matter of right. On the other hand, if it were not,as almost everybody seemed to think it could not be, then it ought not to be received. Therefore, as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would be equally within the fourteen days if he were to present the petition after the holidays, he ( Mr. Wynn) would suggest that the debate should' be adjourned till Monday the 30th inst.—( Hear. ) Mr. HUM E thought, although the debate were adjourned, that the petition might be printed.—(No, no. ) Mr. O'CONNEL L would not oppose the adjournment of the question till Monday, the 30th. But he begged it to be understood that he offered the petition as a matter of right. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it' it were the opinioii - of the House that the debate should be adjourned, he should not object to it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the best course for tak ing the debate on the question, ‘viiich had been raised, by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), would be to agree to the adjournment. He agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-' roan, that it this were not an election petition it should not be received at all ; and, therefore, until that question was decided, it would not be proper that the petition should be laid on the table. _ _ After a few words feom Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, the debate was adjourned till Monday, the 30th inst. Mr. O'LOG HLEN presented a petition from a person of the city of Dublin, complaining that the Committee to whom the petition against the return of the late Members for the city of Dublin was referred had, notwithstanding the death of Mr. Rdthven, on the 31st of March last, without any notice to the electors, prbceeded to hear and decide upon the matter of that petition. It alleged that the proceedings of the Com milee after the death of Mr. Ruthven were void, and that the e!octors were not parties in any way whatever thereto ; and they prayed that the House would take the matter into its consideration, and declare that the report and proceedings of the said Committee after the death of Mr. Ruthven - were null and void, or make such other order as the House should think fit. \lr. C. W. WYNN thought a petition to declare null and void the decision of an election Committee under an Act of Parliament was a most •unprecedented proceeding. He had, however, no objection to the petition being received. The ATTORNEY-CENTRAL said the more convenient emcee, perhaps, would be for his Right Hon. Friend to move that the petition be brought up, and that the question as to it being laid on the table be adjourned till Monday, the 30th instant. Although he was not unacquainted with these sub jects, yet he confessed he was quite unprepared to give an opinion, one way or the other, on the matter now, and there fore wished to have time for consideration. Mr. G. F. YOUNG had distinctly understood from the Right Hon. Gentleman, that it was his intention to give no tice this evening of the presentation of the petition after the adjournment. Mr. O'LOGHLEN said the Hon. Member certainly mis understood him ; for he (Mr. O'Loghlen) had distinctly stated that he should present the petition this evening. The petition was then brought up, • and the - further consi deration of it adjourned till Monday, the 30th instant. REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. • Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on the 21st day of June next he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to reform the House of Lords.—( Hear, hear.) BARON DE BODE. Mr. O'CONNELL also gave notice that he should bring on the case of Baron de Bode; but we did not catch the day. PORTUGAL. Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask the Noble Lord the Se cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he could give him any information as to the state of the negotiations now pending between this country and Portugal on the subject matter of our commercial relations with that country. He asked the question, because the treaty of Rio Janeiro had ex pired on the 20th of April last, and there were now no certain and established duties to which those trading with Portugal were liable. Lord PALMERSTON could not give the Hon. Gentleman any information as to what the exact state of the negotiation between the two countries was. It was in progress. The Hon. Gentleman must be aware that there had been two or three changes of the Ministry in Portugal pending the nego tiation, which had been necessarily protracted by that circum stance. The Government who had recently come into power had taken up the subject with the British Minister in Lisbon, and be (Lord Palmerston) had no doubt, that in a short time, the negotiation would be brought to a close. Mr. ROBINSON had given a notice on the subject for the 9th of June; before which he hoped the Noble Lord would be able to give some satisfactory information respecting it. THE TIMBER DUTIES. Mr. H AWE S begged to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Beard of Trade whether it was the in tention of Government to alter the rate of duty on timber ? He (Mr. Hawes) had heard that the rate was not to be altered, but the mode of levying it was to be changed. As many of his constituency were deeply interested in the question, he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would give him some information on the subject. Mr. PO ULETT THOMPSON said that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government, during the present Session, to introduce any measure for altering the rate of duty. On the topic of the mode of admeasurement he could only say, that as the matter was now under consideration, he could not upon that subject give the Hon. Gentleman any po sitive answer. Mr. G. F. YOUNG said that the question was one of great importance, inasmuch as any change in the mode of assessing the duty might have an effect of a similar cha racter and not inferior to an entire alteration of the rate of duty charge. Mr. WARBURTON rose to order. If what the Hon. Gentleman stated was in the simple form of a question he would not interfere ; but when he proceeded to make obser vations, and to draw inferences from those observations on a subject upon which he (Mr. Warburton) entertained a dif ferent opinion from him, and to which he had no opportunity to reply, he must object to such a course being taken. Mr. G. F. YOUNG would confine himself to expressing his hope that sufficient notice would be given to the parties in terested before any ehange was made. !SPAIN. Mr. MACLEAN, in consequence of what was now going on in Spain, wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and what instructions had been given to the commander of his Majesty's cruisers in that part of the world with regard to the commercial inter course of other nations with the northern provinces of Spain ? Whether, supposing any English, American, or Russian mer chants, or the merchants of any other nation, wished to carry on a commercial intercourse with the adherents of Don Carlos, any instructions had been given by his Majesty's Government to the British cruisers under the command of Lord John Hay to interfere with those parties? Lord PALME RSTON could only say, in answer to the Hon. Member, that the instructions given to his Majesty's cruisers now on the coast of Spain were in strict compliance with the terms of the treaty entered into by this country with Spain under the quadruple alliance.—( Hear. ) Mr. MAC LE AN observed that that treaty stated that a naval force should be sent to the coast of Spain. Now, his question was, whether the naval force would interfere with those commercial relations? Lord PALMERSTON—If the Hon. Gentleman asked what that naval force would do, he (Lord Palmerston) must decline telling him what it would do. But if or, any occasion that naval force, in the execution of its instructions, should do that which the Hon. Gentleman should consider improper to have been done, then it would be for the Hon. Gentleman to bring that specific case forward, and it would be his (Lord Palmerston's) duty to give him every explanation in his power. Mr. C. W. WYNN observed that the merchants of Eng land were surely entitled to claim information from his Ma jesty's Government, whether they were or were not at liberty to carry on commerce with the ports of Spain which were now occupied by what were called the insurgents, or the party of Don Carlos. Lord PALMERSTON replied that it was perfectly well known that a limitation bad been put by the Government of Spain, upon the commercial intercourse between other coun tries and those ports. Those restrictions being well known, it was unnecessary for him to give any information upon the subject. Mr. C. W. W YNN—The question was not what the Go vernment of Spain had done, but whether the English cruisers would allow the merchants - of this country to carry on com merce with those parts or not. He did not ask what the Queen of Spain had done, but what the King of England had done. Whether the King of England had issued any order to prevent his subjects from trading with those parts of Spain ? Mr. MAC LE AN would now give notice, that after the va cation he should move that the instructions given to Lord John Hay be laid on the table of the House. Colonel BOLDERO begged to ask the Noble Lord under whose instructions Lord John Hay attacked the works of St. Sebastian, he not having been then assailed? Whether he acted under the orders of the Queen of Spain or under those of General Evans? ... Lord PALMERSTON--I beg to inform the Hon. and Gallant Member, that Lord John Hay on that occasion acted in conformity with, and in pursuance of the instructions which he received from his Majesty's Government.—(Loud cheers.) ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLIDAYS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday, the 30th instant. Some Hon. Gentlemen had asked the reason of moving so long an ad journment, but the adjournment he was now moving was not so long as took place in 1834. With regard to the last year, it was impossible to make any comparison, as the holidays were very long in consequence of a change in the Ministry. But in 1834 the holidays were 19 days at Easter, and six at Whitsuntide, makin g in all 25 days. In the present year th e re were 11 holidays at Easter, and he proposed nine days now, making together 20 days, being five less than in 1834. It seemed to him to be more convenient to have rather less holidays at Easter, and more at Whitsuntide. The business of the House had been this year most fatiguing, in conse quence of the irumber of private Committees. When the House resumed its labours, lie thought that the orders of the day ought to take precedence in all the days of the week. By that course they would, in one fortnight, make such way with the business of the House as would considerably shorten the session. After a few words from Mr. C. W. WYNN, the motion was agreed to. ESTABLISHED CHURCH COMMISSION. Lord — JOHN RUSSELL brought up the third report of this Commission. Mr. POTTER took that opportunity of asking the Noble Lord when he proposed to proceed with the Registry of Births and Marriages Bill ? The Dissenters were extremely anxious on the subject, and be hoped the Noble Lord would name an early period. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir S. Inglis) had asked him the' same question on a former evening, on the ground that the members of the Established Church felt the strongest anxiety upon the subject.--(A laugh.) His answer to the Hon. Baronet was, that he hoped he should be enabled to bring the measure forward on the 6th of June. With re ference to the Church Commission, having presented the re port, he hoped there would be no objection to his moving for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect certain of the re commendations contained in it. It seemed to him very de sirable that the Bill should be brought in at once, in order that it might be printed and before the House for some time pre vious to its coming under their consideration. He did not wish to raise any decided discussion upon the subject at the present moment ; and he would beg to suggest to, the Hon. Gentleman who had given notice of a motion with reference to it, that the Committee would be the proper stage at which to bring that motion forward. He would merely add at present, that the Bill related only to the territorial division of the dioceses and the revenue and patronage of the sees. lie moved for leave to bring in the Bill. On the question being put, Mr. C. LUS HINGTON in compliance with the Noble Lord's suggestion, would bring forward his motion as an in structiun to the Committee. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill ; and*the Bill was subsequently brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be printed. ARCH-DIOCESE OF YORK. Lord J. RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill for regulating- the secular jurisdiction of the Arch-Diocese of York. This Bill as also brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be printed. TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. On the motion of Lord J. RUSS SLL the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, pro forma, on the Tithe Commutation Bill. The House resumed, the amendments were reported, and the Bill was ordered to be taken into further consideration on that day three weeks. STAMP ACTS. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL (in the temporary absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the House re solved itself into Committee, pro forma, on the Stamp Acts. Certain verbal amendments were made, and the Bill, as amended, was ordered to be printed. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the further consi deration of the Report on this Bill. Mr. W A RBURTON rose for the purpose of moving that it be an instruction to the Committee to add to the Bill cer tain clauses of which he had given notice. His object was to deprive the Judges of the power of nominating the Revising Barristers, arid to vest the nomination in other hands. At first he had entertained the intention of proposing that it should be intrusted to the Lord Chancellor for the time being ; but after mature reflection he had arrived at the conclusion that it could be confided to no better authority than to the Speaker of the House of Commons. He proposed that their number should not exceed twelve ; and allowing a sufficient salary to each. It appeared to him that the whole business could be transacted at an expense to the public not exceeding 16,0001. a year. The question having been put that the Bill be re committed, the Hon. Member moved his first resolution— " That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for a permanent Court for revis ing the lists of voters, and for a Court of Appeal from the same." Lord J. RUSSELL regretted that there was so thin a House upon this occasion, for he was most desirous to learn the sentiments of the House at large upon a proposition so important as this. His own impression was, that the object proposed by the Hon. Member was a most desirable one. —( Hear, hear.) He bad, in fact, stated to the Attorney- General before the Bill came into the House, that he thought there ought to be a permanent court of revision, with a smaller number of revising barristers, in order that there might be ob tained a uniformity of decisions.—(Hear, hear.) A diffi culty had at that time presented itself to his mind in the way of the alteration; but the Hon. Member had succeeded in obviating that difficulty. The advantages of the proposition before them appeared to him very considerable, and he there fore hoped the House would cmicur with him in facilitating its being carried into effect. Among all the rights of indivi duals which were brought into dispute from time to time, he had not the least lamented the disputes which arose in refer ence to the rights of individuals to vote for Members of Par liament. These disputes arose for the most part from the va riety of franchise which formerly prevailed throughout the country. The House had within the last few years corrected this evil to a certain extent, by establishing nearly a uniformity of franchise throughout the kingdom, but still doubts re mained in various places and counties. There was not now a greater variety of decisions than formerly; but the fact was, that decisions being now made in public by the revising bar rister, where they were formerly made in private by the assessor, the discrepancies of opinion now came more before the public. It was most desirable, for the sake of all parties, that there should be a certainty and uniformity as to the right of voting, and that when the decision upon a doubtful point was made, that the decision should extend to all parts of the country, so that a voter in Yorkshire might not be dis franchised upon a point which established his right to a vote in Cornwall. He, therefore, considered that there would be a very great public advantage derived from the establishment of a court of revision, and of a court of appeal from that re vision. The proceedings of these courts would, in the course of a year, form a body of decisions which would fix the law and remove all doubts upon the subject at present existing. He also thought that the doubts which arose from the con flicting decisions of election committees of that House would be removed by the establishment of these courts of appeal; for the members of committees would, no d6ubt, avail themselves of the decisions of the courts of revising bar risters when placed upon the improved system. There would thus be effected certainty where there was now doubt, and they would also get rid of that expensive litigation which arose out of the present system. He had before stated that a difficulty had at one time occurre d t o hi m u p o n this subject, and this difficulty was as to the parties by whom the members of these courts should be appointed. He agreed with the Hon. Gentleman that there was a great objection to the ap pointment of Revising Barristers by the 'Judges, because he thought •it not advisable that any such patronage should be placed in the hands of persons holding the rank and station which Judges in this country held, lest it should render them liable to charges which, however unfounded, could not be escaped from in the existing state of party animosity on one side or the other. He objected to the appointment being vested in the Crown, but he did not see the same objection to the appointments being vested in the Speaker. It was no doubt true, that however impartial the Speaker was properly assumed to be in his purely official character as Speaker, yet he could not be called upon to be neutral as to his private political opinions ; as the Speaker of the House had for many years past been selected from the ranks of one or the other party in the House, it was not t o be e xpected that he could be perfectly impartial in his political..sen timents. It was therefore, more than proba ble, that if the appointment were vested in the hands of the Speaker of the .. House, that he would appoint to the office men whose cal opinions were of the same character with his own, rather than men whose opinions were adverse. But even supposing this to be a disadvantage, he (Lord J. Russell) could not see that, under all the circumstances, the House could do better than to vest the appointment in the Speaker. He thought, however, that the clause was one of such importance that it ought to receive the serious cons i deration of the House at a future period. Mr. WYNN could have wished this clause had f orme d part of the original i Bill, in order that t might have been regularly discussed. He had long been satisfied of the neces sity of establishing a court of revision and also a court of a th P e pe k a i l r, is extreme The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed b g in do o m rd . er to procure uniformity of d ec isions through out n. r s e at o i e s i f v a e c d tio b n y a t t he th m e omuasne.nerTinhewphriocphostihtiios pnproofpotshietiolniohadmb_eemen. had been ber for Bridp or t was near ly the same with one which s Noble suggested to him (the Attorney-General) Friend, with the exception, indeed, that the Ho b n y . A b le found means to obviate the only difficulty which bad b felt by the Noble Lord. The present system had given greatt.s dissatisfaction throughout the conntry, though in saying h o i., he did not mean to throw any reflection upon his brethren the bar who had officiated as revising barristers ; but the mer e a. fact of there having been 172 revising barristers, even h mber had each of them united in himself the wisdom and experience io e all the fifteen Judges, was sufficient to explain why there I.. i ct e been such a discrepancy in the decision. By reducini„,_ t e l s number of Revising Barristers, and securing the highest available talent, the result would be such an uniformity of cisions throughout the country as would command the i cspe . a of the public. The business would be done, if not more sans. factorily, at any rate more efficaciously. If they then went into Committee pro forma, the amendment cou ld be intro duced, and the Bill could be re-printed, and afterwards con sidered. Mr. C. BULLER did not object to the appointm ent of a Court of Revision on the decision of Registration Barristers. He objected, however, to the vesting the appointment of t e Barristers in the Speaker of the House of Commons, becaus he was not conversant with the legal profession, but would ra ther have it placed in the responsible Minister of the Crown; namely, the Secretary for the Home Department. His gre objection to the Court of Appeal, as suggested , w as, that it, would be a constantly fluctuating body, and some members et it would have great authority in it, while,others had little or none, and the consequence would be, that great confusion would arise. Mr. BERNAL observed, that as the House appeared to ap prove of the principle of his Hon. Friend's motion, it would be better to abstain from discussing it until they went into Corn" mittee. Whether the appointments should rest with the Speaker or the Secretary for the Home Department would be a proper matter for the Committee to decide. Mr. C. VILLIERS did not disapprove of the nomination, of the Speaker to appoint the functionaries for theirevision votes. He felt strongly the defects of the present system, an d agreed that it was absolutely necessary to make some change. He was sorry, however, that his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport did not agree in the appointment of a Court of Revision. Mr. WARBURTON would prefer that the appointmen" should rest with one individual rather than with manY , there would be more responsibility. He should prefer that the Speaker had the appointment of the revising barristers ' rather than the Lord Chancellor. He only wished at present that his proposition should be agreed to pro forma, and it could be introduced into the Bill in Committee, and considered on a future occasion. The SPEAKER said that the first intimation which heliat i of the intention of the Hon. Member for Bridport to give to himself the appointment of these judges, was from reading it in the printed resolutions. He must own that he read it with regret, and subsequent reflection had not diminished that re gret. He thought it would in some degree combine the eat` cutive with the legislative power, to which latter he though t the functions of the House ought to be confined ; still, if it was the pleasure of this House to fix this duty upon him, b e would acquiesce in it. It 'would, he considered, be placing an appointment which ought to be responsible, in the hands of th e only Member who could not stand up in his place and defend bis conduct when questioned. The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill. Mr. WARBURTON brought up his clause, which was put tr a oe n l cl Acwoinm t agreed uhmmtihbtteear t lu o oon . f fd o et t rh h se e ta i nß c d l ii a lnl u g : t s hT s a v ti e i r et e h e a ti ls o o suhs b oe r u o l u tdh g e l b i n t e u re p eosn a us n mi agreed'considered tot Bill was reported and ordered to be reprinted. Mr. HUME gave notice, on the re-commitment of the 8 111, that poio t t m h e e Secretary e the t ar y r e o v f i thesngHome barristers Dep Department should s o h f ou ti l l d e h .s a , v p e ea th k e er ap o - f the House of Commons. Mr. V. SMITH gave notice that he should on the 7t h of July, move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the, appointment of justices in corporate towns of England an Wales. Mr. G. PRICE gave notice that whenever the House W" t into a Committee of Supply, he should move that the notice the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkenny had given that night be rescinded from the notice book of the House, as being , adverse to the principles of the Constitution, as derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, and as an abuse of the privileges or that House. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and ';be House adjourned at a quarter past ten. • COURT CIRCULAR. The Landgravine of Hesse Homburg visited the Duke of Sussex and the Princess Augusta yesterday, His Serene Highness the reigning Duke of Saxe Co burg Gotha, the Hereditary Prince, and the Prince Albert , called yesterday at the residences of their Royal Hi g h n esses # the Princess Augusta, the Landgravine, th e D uc h es s 0 1 Gloucester, the Princess Sophia, the Princess S o phi a Ma tilda, and the Dukes of Sussex and Cumberland. ... The Princess Augusta honoured Viscount and Vises countess Beresford with her company at dinner yesterday The Landgravine of Hesse Homberg visited the Viscotuit and Viscountess in the evening. A deputation from the united committee of Protestan t Dissenters, consisting of Mr. \Vaymouth, the Rev. Messrs. Burnet, Mench, and Tideman, and Messrs. Baines, 73rowTh Mills, and Fletcher, had an interview on the present posi tion of Dissenters' disabilities, with Lord John Russell yes' terday, at the Home-office. Viscount Melbourne took an airing. yesterday in a car riage for the first time since his recent indisposition. The Marquis of Lansdowne had a dinner party last eV' . ing at his residence at Richmond. WINDSOR-FRIDAY. - 31 L His Majesty returned to the Castle on Wedr,escll/ evening, escorted by a party of the Royal Horse Cii/ 011 4° . Prince Ernest of Hesse Phillippsthal has als o returned the Castle. Their Majesties took their customary airing in the Gn at Park. St This morning their Majesties have gone to lu o° - Lord Denbigh's. will On Monday the King and Queen, and the visit:o o ' leave for town, and will remain some time at St. Jame s s• MUSICAL LECTURES. Two lectures, in reference to the present st ate of the e musical art, were delive r ed by Mr. H. I. G a u rL tlett to the members of the Islington Literary Institution, on the e very ings of Thursday, the 12th and 19th instant. VheY were introduced by some remarks o n the formation at d cultivai tion of a sound and classical taste on correct models, the the to ticluif the state of the art was then considered in refer,. different branches of the sci ence ; th e ccc l es i a sti,;u . ing the anthem, mass, and oratorio ; instrument 31, Pa rti k eu ; larly noticing the modern symphony ; dramatic musi c ' Sc bee, The illustrations were selected from the works of ' Bach, Handel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethov en, Hummel, Spoilt., Ries, Mendelssohn, Rossini, aid S..hl e t ' er The vocal performers engaged were Miss Rainfo rth, 1 \ 13 % - c Howe, Mr. Francis, Mr. Hobbs, Mr. A. N. Nall° ; Bls instrumental, Mrs. Cope, Mr. J. Bannister, ltir. grove, Mr. Kearns, Mr. Lazarus, and Mr. H. J.. Bann fro m Miss Rainforth sang the grand and elaborate seenn,iri°,,,-,, the Azor and Zenara of Spohr, and the dr et ,`" - o f bella," from Der Berggcist, with Mr. Novella, in a st le •d - a the most finished excellence. Mr. Hobbs, in the Addat.u. of Beethoven, was enthusiastically received, a ad was raPt i l; rously encored in Shield's lovely melody of 1 While the 11 a of the village." Mrs. Cope and Mr. Lazari performea r, beautiful duet for the pianoforte and clario) act, an dttj: and the Messrs. J. Bannister, Blagrove, Ke: I rns, ' 1 %,0_ , Bannister executed several quartetts in a very cbarnn-n.: manner. The pianoforte quartett (in Brr Linor) of M e ,„ a truly delssohn proved a source of great delight, and is astonishing specimen of his extraordir.ary ge nius ' the abounds with amazing difficulties, and 'As pr o bably in is , recolleoion of the musical public from its pe.rformauee the members of the Quartet at their last meet_ ing in the presen t season. The audience wr.s. exceedingly numerous on both occasions , and evinced the ,utmost ateteenii tin to the specimens submitted to their Potice, wma we o re, without exception, highly beautiful, classical, all attractive compositions. ---- --- _ -- Sir Robert and Lady Peel and family left Wbite gt f. hall-gardens on Wednesday for Drayton Mr .nor HOUget '''' -5 fordshire, where the Right Hon. Baronet is expected to re main until the 30th inst., to which day the House of Ce. rn ; mons is expected to be adjourned this evening, on the n tet l° of Lord John Russell, for the Whitsuntide r ecess. Mr' RIENZI, TIIE LAST OF THE TRIBUNE-'-- aar v Bulwer has traced the bald events of the extraordi... career of the Tribune Rienzi in language th e most po' Nrcs ful and animating. The characters, c,sipecially the fete I .v e Nina and Irene, are drawn with have presented to us the stern inflexibility of Rienzi , ._, unf: k‘ ll 7: reckless bearing of Walter de Montreal, the devotion of Nina, and the fond love of the gentle GT', He has described with a vigorous and well sustained mapo'a power the Roman Nobles with their feuds, their tyrarfiY, 1610 f their contemptibl e feebleness ,_• the brutal licentic,no,ess 0, Martino di Porto, the animal 4:erocity of Orsini, 4 nd - 0 1 °41 0 lished but heartless sarcasm of Luca di Savelli. I n the wu . ,,, i . range of ancient or modern history, it is not Gas/ owersto ths,rl'i;,t, a subject embracing nobler materials; it is nue laic' called forth the highest exercise o f Mr. Bulwc,r's p. amusing themselves by rook -shooting, at NevJborougb, had SPIRITs.—Last Friday, a party *,vho bal? :roe! ployed a lad to take them liquor into the wc ,ods ; and hurl th ey ie .. had most reprehensibly plied with ardent F.spirit to sue%_:itt gree as to produce a locked jaw. He sve.s conveyed bI" t awshliconckoiunrg informant state, liis left, his groans were the only sound he. could articteatte.--1 Courant. firmly t h e I had '-'ne 1 noticd and b e e n i l o i s p t e c il e e t te a o - el r ' -; ), 1 ' l